| > But on the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year. It's surely not. Even the "normal" averages include people who have big problems. If you are an individual who is not in the group of people with big problems, and if the virus can make you sick, your risk gets up significantly, as soon as you risk being infected. Because, for example, you can know that you personally aren't in the risk group of people tending to commit suicide. The currently known estimate of "people who get the virus and have no recognizable symptoms during all phases of infection" is just around 20% across all the age groups. Knowing that younger than 45 aren't being only 20% of population, it doesn't sound so trivial. The same (that one can know that catching virus increases risk) is for some of the people with big problems, even if they are young: it is known that some of those (who have some big problems) are hit much stronger by the virus, e.g. those with diabetes: without the virus they can safely expect to live for decades more, with the virus, they can immediately expect much less. And no, not only overweight people have diabetes. And the above analysis is only for young people. But being old enough (and that is even for those being above 45) and catching the virus increases the risks of permanent health damage or death many times, according to all statistics we have. Finally, no age group can expect to have "no problems" as soon as the health system collapses, and that is why the strict measures were introduced in most of the world -- it is a reasonable goal to avoid that much. |
The health system does need to be prevented from collapsing, but that can be achieved with measures much less severe than "no socializing". Strict lockdowns may have been necessary before, but they're not necessary now, which is why they're being rolled back pretty much across the globe.